iSCSI dedicated switch: Cisco SG200-08 vs HP 1810-8g

[mendr_j]

Dear all,

I am trying to build a small (home) NAS in a HP ProLiant Microserver N40L as an iSCSI server. This iSCSI server will be used as a shared datastore of at least 2 ESXi separate servers. The total of VMs which will be hosted is around 10 VMs.

I want to buy a "low-cost" switch for the above topology which support (at the same time) both Link Aggregation, Flow Control and Jumbo Frames (9K) Features. The switch will be used dedicated for the communication between NAS and ESXi servers. In my research I found two candidates: HP 1810-8g (which does not support at the same time Link Aggregation and Flow Control) and Cisco SG200-08 (which I cannot find some information if support these features simultaneously). I also found that the buffer is very important. The HP have 512KB and Cisco 4 MB.

Have any of you use the above switches for iSCSI communication ? Could you compare their performace ? I am open in any recommendations.

Thank you,
John

 

[reflection]

From a switching perspective, you are just switching ethernet frames. The iSCSCI packets are just IP packets on ethernet frames.

I don't have experience with those exact switch models, but I have experience with both Cisco and HP switches. In general, I would say Cisco switches are MUCH MUCH better (performance, ease of configuration, and reliability).

 

[clownphish]

I'd agree with reflection insofar as Cisco are the 'gold plated' choice. With that comes the price tag! If you can afford it (and I'm not sure what the price difference is) the SG200-08 looks like a great product. It does support all the features you mentioned according to the data sheet .

I've used HP switches before and while they are usually sufficient for the task, I have to say I have seen more problems on them. I have gone with them for environments were price is an issue though.

An alternative that may suit you is Dell's PowerConnect range. They're getting very good now.

Overall, I think you should have a pretty good solution as long as you have enough memory in your separate ESXi servers. Looks like going with iSCSI instead of NFS is a good choice too in the absence of any SSD drives to provide a ZIL drive to improve the synchronous writes that would occur using NFS.

Good luck!